thirty-six exposures, one after the other. You could take more chances, since you didn’t have as much invested in each frame. The camera was lighter and smaller, so you could follow people as they went about their routine activities and get photographs that were more “candid,” that appeared natural and unposed, as if the photographer was not present but was a “fly on the wall.”

Gary Settle, the photo coach at the Seattle Times in the early 1990s (a position unheard of in the 1970s), says that when many of the oldtimers were finally forced to use 35mm cameras and film, they would put their big flash on a Nikon, just as they had with the Graflex, and complain, “Whadda ya mean, this camera isn’t any lighter, it weighs as much as the Graflex, and the pictures are grainy.” Some of them never adapted to the different way of photographing made possible by 35mm cameras. They made the same kinds of photographs they had always made, despite the possibilities the new equipment opened up.

Gary had been a photographer at the Chicago Daily News in 1966 when that newspaper switched to 35mm, but he felt luckier than the other staff photographers because he had already made the switch in 1958 when he was at the Topeka Capital-Journal, one of the first newspapers in the country to make the change. Before Topeka, he had been using a Rollei 2 1/4 (a negative size between the 4x5 and the 35mm), but still found the switch to a 35mm camera difficult. More experienced 35mm users made better pictures with it than he did, and that seemed paradoxical to him. The larger format was considered technically superior because it produced larger negatives from which you could make prints with finer grain and detail. The 35mm cameras were lighter and easier to use in some ways, but to get good negatives from the smaller format you had to be a more exacting technician when the photograph was made.

I learned photography with a 35mm camera. It was the only camera I used, the only